In yesterday's column in the Herald Sun (syndicated in Sydney's Daily Telegraph, though as usual with a much sillier headline, which isn't Bolt's fault) Australia's most-read columnist weighed into the hypocrisy of those 'anguished voices in the Fairfax newspapers, and on the ABC' who have been 'gibbering' and 'groaning' about Gina Rinehart's raid on Fairfax Media's share register, while welcoming the advent of a new online newspaper, the Global Mail, funded by Wotif entrepreneur Graeme Wood.

Wood, of course, is the man who, with Kathmandu founder Jan Cameron, bought the Triabunna woodchip mill in Tasmania from Gunns, with the declared intention of closing it down. He has given $1.6 million to The Greens. In political terms, Wood is the polar opposite of Gina Rinehart, and indeed of Andrew Bolt.

(Be it noted in passing that Bolt rejects the widespread assumption that it was Rinehart's influence, as a major shareholder in and director of the Ten Network, that brought The Bolt Report to our screens last year. "I worked at Ten before Rinehart bought into it, and was signed up for The Bolt Report by then-acting CEO Lachlan Murdoch, once my chairman here at News Ltd," he writes. Well, maybe. But the fact remains that The Bolt Report premiered on Ten in May last year, fully five months after Gina Rinehart became a board member. Both Murdoch and Rinehart have declared their admiration for Bolt's work.)

Bolt characterises the advent of The Global Mail like this:

"A super-rich boss with strong opinions from the political fringe now controls a media asset that's now pumping out the owner's world view."

As evidence, he points to the fact that most of The Global Mail's stable of journalists formerly worked for the ABC or Fairfax Media - both, in the eyes of Bolt and his readers, irredeemably leftist organisations. Its managing editor is Monica Attard, former ABC foreign correspondent, Walkley-award winning ABC radio interviewer and, of course, one of my predecessors in the Media Watch chair.

Bolt analyses the output of The Global Mail: three articles about the Occupy movement, three hostile articles about the mining industry, sympathetic profiles of Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull.

"We're told Wood has no control over his reporters," Bolt writes.

"He won't need it now that he's got a group-think collective which will, unbidden, take all the standard left positions."

Let's acknowledge that, on the strength of its first few days online, The Global Mail is not likely to appeal to Andrew Bolt's readers. It is more likely to appeal to tertiary-educated, professional people, with an appetite for long, considered and not especially up-to-the-minute stories from around the world.

Let's further acknowledge that more tertiary-educated, professional people (as opposed to self-employed small business people and big business executives) vote Labor or Green than Liberal or National - these are the 'liberal elites' and 'chattering classes' so often scorned by the likes of Andrew Bolt. Arguably, the same people form the target audience of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, and (News Ltd columnists would certainly argue) of the ABC as well. And they're already being targeted by newer publications like Crikey, New Matilda and The Monthly.

The difference is that The Global Mail has far more money than the other newcomers - enough to employ resident correspondents in five overseas locations - and that it is not even going to attempt to make a profit, or even to pay its way, at least at first. As Monica Attard puts it, The Global Mail is an act of 'pure philanthropy' by Graeme Wood.

"He sees it as a gift to the Australian people."

It was not, however, Wood's idea; it was Attard's. She approached him with the idea of a philanthropically-funded journalistic endeavour, inspired by the American site Pro-Publica, though with less exclusive emphasis on investigative journalism. Wood agreed to stump up the money - $15 million over the next five years - but, according to Attard, will have no input whatsoever into The Global Mail's editorial output.

Those who will have a say sit on its Editorial Advisory Committee. They range from Four Corners reporter Marian Wilkinson (a fine journalist, but one whom Andrew Bolt would have no difficulty in dismissing as a leftie) to former ACCC head Graeme Samuel and former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal Paul Steiger, neither of whom fit so easily into the 'left-leaning' basket. And incidentally, says Attard, she did approach two senior journalists from News Ltd to join her team. In the end, both decided to stay where they were.

If The Global Mail is going to be pumping out anyone's world view, it is Attard's, not Wood's - and she claims she has appointed the advisory committee to ensure that, as she puts it, "we stick to our mission". That mission, the Global Mail grandly declares, is "to deliver original, fearless, independent journalism". In the coming months and years, we'll all get a chance to see how it goes.

Meanwhile, I don't believe there would have been much gibbering and groaning, from leftie-lovies or anyone else, had Gina Rinehart decided to spend a tiny portion of her vast wealth doing precisely the same as Wood has done. In fact in my view, she would be absolutely entitled to set up an online newspaper and to make no bones about the fact that she did expect it to reflect her own view of the world. The Australian media scene needs more diversity, more points of view: the more, the merrier.

What is causing the angst and the gnashing of teeth about Rinehart's media moves into Ten and Fairfax is the simple fear that it could result not in more media diversity in the mainstream Australian media, but less.

Precisely what Rinehart's motives are, she isn't saying. Generally speaking, she doesn't say much publicly about anything she does (although she has had plenty to say about the Rudd and Gillard Government's plans in recent years). But it's known that her father Lang Hancock tried influencing public opinion with his own start-up publications, and came to the conclusion it was a mug's game. The mainstream media had all the clout, he concluded.

It's rather doubtful that her investments in Ten and Fairfax Media have been chosen for their potential to increase Rinehart's already substantial wealth - at least, not directly. The suspicion is that she wants to influence the tone and direction of the national conversation by buying into two established media companies, and attempting to influence their editorial content.

The problem with that, from the point of view of the lefties and lovies, can be summed up in two words: Rupert Murdoch. Or, if you prefer, News Ltd.

As it happens, a new book - yes, another - about Rupert Murdoch has just been published. Rupert Murdoch: An Investigation of Political Power by David McKnight (Allen & Unwin) is not just another biography. McKnight is an Associate Professor of Journalism at UNSW. He's an unashamedly political animal. He's had a career-long interest in the politics of the Cold War, and has written about the modern culture wars between left and right, and what should replace them. His Murdoch book, as its subtitle suggests, focuses exclusively on how the most influential individual this country has ever produced uses his media power to advance his political beliefs.

Most Murdoch-watchers have claimed that to the extent that he picks sides in politics, Rupert Murdoch does so to further his financial interests and to maximise his media power. Governments, not oppositions, control issues such as media ownership and diversity; the trick, for a media owner such as Murdoch, is to make governments believe that they are in power because of your assistance, and might well lose power should you turn against them. Most observers have reckoned that he backs winners until he senses they are turning into losers, and then he backs next year's winner.

McKnight argues that this is wrong. The exercise of political influence, he argues, is one of the things that makes Murdoch tick, that infuses him with his legendary drive and energy. And after a brief flirtation with the left, which ended soon after Gough Whitlam was elected in 1972, he has sided with the right. McKnight persuasively shows how one of the founding fathers of the populist conservatism that captured the Reagan Democrats, and the Howard battlers, and kept Margaret Thatcher in power for a decade and more, was Rupert Murdoch.

Yes, McKnight concedes, Murdoch's British newspapers did support Tony Blair for a decade too: but only because Blair went along with Murdoch's obsessions, particularly in rejecting a closer integration with Europe, and in embracing the foreign policy of George W Bush.

At the root of Murdoch's politics, argues McKnight, is his image of himself as a radical, anti-establishment, anti-intellectual figure, a man who despises as much as he is despised by the liberal elites and chattering classes. In that sense, The (Melbourne) Herald Sun, the (Sydney) Daily Telegraph, The (London) Sun, The New York Post, and above all, Fox News, are authentic megaphones for their master's voice. None of those organs, nor their boss, have ever had much time for the separation of news from comment. They are all about speaking to their audiences in a clear, unambiguous political voice.

Murdoch is so dominant a figure in News Corporation, says McKnight, that he doesn't need to issue directives to his editors, principal columnists and presenters. To adapt a couple of Andrew Bolt's colourful phrases, Murdoch has created within News Corporation "a group-think collective which will, unbidden... pump out the owner's world view".

McKnight has his own political leanings, which are certainly not to the right. In my view, that doesn't make his portrayal of Murdoch's politics unfair or inaccurate; but it does perhaps lead him to understate a very simple truth: the tone of News Corporation's publications, in Australia, the US and the UK, captures perfectly the hopes, the fears and the aspirations of a mass audience. Without that ability to encapsulate popular taste - in movies and TV programs, in sports coverage and gossip, as well as in political opinion - News Corporation would not have the power and influence that it has.

From what we know of them both, there is probably not all that much that Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart would disagree about, when it comes to politics or economics (except, perhaps, for Murdoch's love for his adopted country; from the family emails recently made public, it seems Rinehart is not a fan of the United States of America). And according to David McKnight, despite his departure from the family firm, Lachlan Murdoch is closer to his father politically than are any of his other three adult children. Indeed, according to News Ltd veteran Mark Day, the emperor has decided to reoccupy the chair of his Australian province, News Ltd, to keep it warm for the return of the prodigal son.

The concern of the gibberers and groaners about Rinehart's move into Fairfax is simple: there are only two major nationwide newspaper companies in Australia. If one of them is run by someone who makes no bones about using his papers to further a right-wing populist agenda, we don't need the other to be bought by someone with similar obsessions. Besides, Gina Rinehart has not spent a lifetime, like the Murdochs, father and son, learning how to combine populism and right-wing politics into a successful mass media blend. There's a concern - probably shared by the members of Fairfax Media's board - that she might try to use its nationwide reach in the same way as she used the megaphone when she stood on the back of a truck in Perth and denounced the Rudd government's Resource Rent Tax.

That may be grossly unfair to Gina Rinehart. We don't know, because she ain't saying. And in any case, she will undoubtedly find that it's hard to parley a partial shareholding into much in the way of influence over the editorial policies of a media company with a strong tradition of journalistic independence.

But even the attempt might be unhelpful to Fairfax Media which, as everyone knows, is at a perilous stage in a journey that will take it either into a healthy digital future, or into eventual break-up or bankruptcy. It doesn't need political battles on its board, or political coverage in its news pages, that risks alienating its established audience.

Fairfax's new online readership may be large, but it's fickle and hard to monetise. Much though Andrew Bolt may despise the chattering classes, it's they who subscribe to the hard copy versions of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. For quite a while longer, Fairfax desperately needs them to go on doing just that.

Jonathan Holmes is the presenter of ABC TV's Media Watch. View his full profile here.

Comments (233)

helen:

09 Feb 2012 12:58:48pm

The Stamoulis Family of Melbourne also have their own media group and have a museum they have donated to the city of Melbourne. Their kids don't hate Australia and live here unlike the Rhineheart children.

No problem with private companies but very poor taste to sue your next of kin, she must be a very, very ruthless operator.

Budovski:

09 Feb 2012 8:40:17pm

Listen OUB, you don't know Kevid Rudd, Gillard or Tony Abbott but you pass judgement about them don't you?

Now how about you get that chip off your shoulder and calm down a few notches. The information coming out from the Rhinehart court case is being presented to a court, it is not gossip or hearsay. Everyone is entitled to use this information to form their own view about her family, the richest and most influential family in Australia.

You are crying like you are either a member of the family or someone who desperately wants to be, either way you need a reality check..

OUB :

10 Feb 2012 10:05:50am

I think we know a good deal more about our politicians than Rinehart and her children. How are we to judge where the faults lie and by what degree? There are very controlling parents and there kids with a strong sense of entitlement. How can you say where the fault is on the basis of a few affidavits? It may be evidence but what does it prove.

Nope, pretty sure I don't want to get involved with or even know the Rineharts. Or the Woods for that matter.

Budovski:

10 Feb 2012 1:26:45pm

You are criticizing people for 'passing judgement' and saying people need 'qualifications' to make comments on Rhinehart's dysfunctional family. Sorry but you are being totally ridiculous, anyone is entitled to pass comment or have an opinion based on what evidence is publicly available (the rest is busy being suppressed by Gina herself under the false guise of 'security').

'How are we to judge where the faults lie and by what degree?' This isn't a court case, we read gossip on celebrities all the time and form opinions about them. But when a celebrity tries to suppress information, we rightfully smell a much bigger rat and demand to know more.

Media Magnate now:

09 Feb 2012 10:47:22pm

In January 2010 the organisers of a tour to Australia of climate sceptic Christopher Monckton revealed that part of the $100,000 costs of the tour would be met by Rinehart. Rinehart also co-sponsored Monckton's 2011 visit, and bankrolled global warming sceptic Ian Plimer's visit to Perth in 2011 to address the attendees at the Boao Forum for Asia Perth conference. Rinehart was invited to attend a three day-wedding of the Sanjay Reddy's daughter. Not only did Rinehart attend but she took along the Liberal Party's deputy leader Julie Bishop and the Senate leader of National Party, Barnaby Joyce in her private jet. Bishop is from Western Australia, where Rinehart's company has huge iron ore mines, and Joyce hails from Queensland, where the coal projects Rinehart was in the process of selling to Reddy's company are. Ms Rinehart has also been heard to complain about the alleged left-wing bias of Ten's popular 7PM Project, and to say the network needs a right-wing Fox News-style show in its line-up." Bolt's program, The Bolt Report, first aired on May 8, 2011 at 10am. Cheryl Edwardes, former Minister for the Environment in Western Australian between 1997 to 2001 and Attorney General is now a senior executive with Rhineharts company Hancock Prospecting.

SALLY:

OUB :

09 Feb 2012 4:20:38pm

How can you possibly judge her politics, she never says anything? She may have embraced Monckton but that is more consistent with her business interests rather than some weird right wing agenda. Or does 'far right' to you just mean she might think the ALP is deficient in some way?

Dave:

09 Feb 2012 5:45:12pm

Why is Gina an extremist. Because she says the government is doing a lousy job (truth according to the majority of Australians). Or is it because she is a successful woman (Gillards supporters rant that she is attacked because she is a woman). Or is it because she is in an industry that Bob Brown and the lunatics are vehemently opposed to? I think this rubbish that if you don't believe the policies served up by this disfunctional government you are automatically an extremist according to the brainwashed ones. We (the majority) just want an election so this country can get back on track before more damage is done

Anne T:

09 Feb 2012 9:40:41pm

Gina has demonstrated that she is an extremist because she sees things in a very simplistic, black and white manner. I did not hear her mount a nuanced argument against the Super-Profits Tax nor did I hear her argue the complexities of climate science and why Lord Monkton should be supported. To be honest, Dave the rather simplistic reasons that you put forward show a signs of extremism as well. Back to the point of the article, the argument against Gina foisting her views on the Fairfax media is a matter of diminishing diversity. I don't know if you have noticed but most of those that align themselves with the right, all seem to say the same thing so we don't need Gina to add to Rupert and Andrew and Gerard and then there's that squawking parrot on the radio Alan Jones to name some of the worst offenders.

Dave:

10 Feb 2012 11:18:08am

What if Lord Monkton is right? Have you considered that an attempt to brainwash our children by Al Gore and his bogus movie has had an influence on this argument. I don't believe in the climate change (was global warming but changed because world isnt warming) doomsayers. What if this "modelling" has been taken down the wrong path? These are the questions that need answering before we jump into an economic disaster, better known as a carbon tax. Not one other country in the world is even looking at anything close to the madness generated by this dysfunctional government

Wining Pom:

Anne T:

10 Feb 2012 10:52:58am

Excellent questions Wining Pom. I am glad you drew attention to that statement by Dave as it illustrates the way that these empty statements by the Coalition and their media spokespersons are swallowed 'hook, line and sinker' by their followers who just regurgitate them without a shred of evidence - I think it is referred to as 'no evidence-based policy.' Another variation on why Tony is named Mr No! It is this very behaviour that Gina is likely to advocate if she has a say in the editorialising of Fairfax and this is concerning. Those of Dave's ilk do not seem to understand or accept that the media is meant to hold all political players (and others in society) to account regardless of the political persuasion of those players rather than to barrack for certain players.

james:

10 Feb 2012 9:37:08am

Anne T, thanks for proving the point, anyone who disagrees with the left is considered an extremist.

I think this is because most lefties don't actually know that many right wingers, and rarely do they hear the opinions of right wingers expresed by someone close to them who they cannot simply dismiss with a loaded term [extremist, racist, bogan, redneck etc].

Anne T:

10 Feb 2012 11:32:25am

James, I didn't say that Dave was extremist because he "disagrees with the left" (incidentally, you are assuming I am from the left by saying that - what evidence do you have). I said his reasons -note difference there - his reasons appear extremist because they are simple, black and white with no argument. The difference in what you say I am saying and what I am saying is nuanced and that is the very point about the concern with Gina influencing the editorialising of Fairfax. In terms of being dismissed with a loaded term, the right wingers to use your terminology aren't bad at it themselves - black arm band view of history, bleeding hearts, chattering classes, ferals. I agree that it does not enhance debate to resort to these labels and perhaps lefties (again your terminology) might not know a lot of right wingers but that could be because they don't enjoy their company because their conversation is not interesting and stimulating. Because they reduce everything to a slogan or a black and white view of the world. Not necessarily because they think that they are .... all the terms you used.

Cochise:

james:

Yes because Andrew Bolt at the HS outweighs Laurie Oakes as political editor plus Suzie O'Brian and Jill Singer hating on men?

Anyone who has socialised with the average journalist from whatever employer realises that overwhelmingly they have a left-liberal view of the world.

This is because of the way they are educated, not the fashion in which they are employed and by whom.

Editors are the ringmasters of a circus, not generals of an army, they can crack the whip and book the acts but that is where the power ends.

Anyone who examines the voting patterns of the public and then examines the voting patterns of the average newsroom can see that journalists are on average to the left of the general population on most issues.

The only difference is that Farifax is far left and News Ltd actually wants to sell papers.

BTW does anyone want to remind J Holmes that McKnight is a Communist who used to edit the old party organ before the wall came down?

Not really the person to be gaining your worldview from, especially if you are trying not to appear biased to the left.

a country gal:

Bud Peart:

09 Feb 2012 2:05:40pm

Not sure if it ever occurred to you but what exactly is 'lefty' about the SMH or The Age? I find both quite pitiful baby boomer focused publications aimed mainly at wealthy inner city folks, and I am probably what you call a 'lefty'.

Why the right wing prefers limited media outlets is bewildering to me.

Mother G:

rufus t firefly:

09 Feb 2012 2:13:33pm

Of course when people read Pravda they knew they were reading propaganda and little else - and could filter accordingly. But there are still a (diminishing) number of readers of the Australian that don't realise they're doing the same thing - and therefore don't filter. The Green Left Weekly tells you its biased, The Oz lacks that level of integrity.

P.S. Are you concerned about media diversity? Or happy to have only one voice provided you agree with it?

Johnno :

09 Feb 2012 2:17:54pm

Just classic. A carefully argued analysis is responded to with a collection of stupid slogans and labels.

Like Murdoch, you may despise the chattering classes, but it is the stupid, intellectually lazy and the simple-minded who think they have 'common sense', when all they have is a capacity to be hood-winked by simplistic slogans, who put this country at risk.

Daniel R:

09 Feb 2012 3:29:14pm

Unfourtunately you've just described far too much of the discourse here. But it's less that they're deceived by slogans, more that it's the only thing they can be bothered to consider that gives the sound bites so much influence in this country.

Bill Door:

Mother G:

10 Feb 2012 10:35:18am

Holmes denigrates anyone who does not subscribe to the ABC'c left wing collective viuew of the world. He believes no one on the opposite side of politics should have a voice, we should all just sit back and accept what the ABC dishes out. There will be many Australians with a good education who are able to think for themselves and should not be rubished by a Man (or Manne) who is elitist. I buy the SMH and the Australian as they give different viewpoints, that is my right.

Huonian:

09 Feb 2012 1:13:29pm

It's not just Bolt and others on the right that think The Age is a leftie rag. As I recall, Lindsay Tanner said much the same thing.

Anyway, all this angst about far right or far left control of certain news outlets ......are there really many people out there who follow the news yet do so entirely through a single source? And aren't we smart enough to be able to filter out the worst of the propagandising that is occasionally served up as new? For example, I don't bother with anything by Piers Akerman or John Pilger for I know it will be wall-to-wall ideological tripe.

The idea that any one person, or a handful of people, can control the news in this age of the Internet is, surely, way out of date. Murdoch couldn't stop the Wikileaks leaks, even if he wanted to. The Age couldn't stop the so-called Climategate emails being published all over the place either.

Instead of worrying ourselves silly about the leftie or rightie media barons, real or wannabe, we should instead demand that the news that's reported is, indeed, news. And not just PR, spin or hype. For example, all the current stories about the Rudd comeback. Why are so many journalists ignoring the fundamental issue in all this - whether he's actually within a bull's roar of the caucus numbers he needs. He hasn't, so it's not news. Meanwhile, there are plenty of things actually happening both here and abroad. That's the news!

rufus t firefly:

09 Feb 2012 2:16:43pm

Valid points, except of course that the current 'age of the internet' encourages and thrives on the very type of stories you condemn, while at the same time lacking any regulatory system or even a pretence of standards to separate news from opinion and trumped up fantasy. Until things change the net is a central part of the problem, not by any means the solution.

John51:

09 Feb 2012 2:23:36pm

Huonian, it would be nice if you were right, but the major news outlets have a lot more influence on public thought than you may want to acknowledge. As it is too many of the major news outlets, including the ABC, have a habit of simply repeating what other major news outlet have said without properly checking the facts. That is how so called news stories such as the Rudd comeback and the so called Gillard and a few faceless men stabing Rudd in the back to become Prime Ministership gain such traction.

The fact that neither stories have any real substance or fit in with the way our parliamentary system works does not matter. The fact that any member of parliament to become Prime Minister or retain that position of Prime Ministership requires a majority. And that means both a majority within your party caucus, as well as a majority of the MP's within the house of Representatives. For some reasons these basic facts seem to get ignored when these stories are run, or when people read them.

The fact is that we have so many within the media including all the spin jocks running so much misinformation out there that facts and truth are the first casualty within the debate. And the problem is that a lot of people simply do not have the time, or necessarly the interest, to spend the time to sort through all the misinformation out there.

Sarah:

09 Feb 2012 2:24:21pm

Huonian- you ask if there are many out there who follow the news yet do so entirely from a single source.

I think the answer would have to be yes; many idealogues would never think of sourcing anything from anywhere other than their side. As there are few real lefty idealogues left these days most idealogues are on the right.

But by far the majority of people do NOT follow any news other than the ten secod grab or headline- that is why a clever biased headline is so politically useful.

A minority do source news and opinion from other than MSM. They are smart enough to filter out the worst of the propoganda that is more often than not served as news.

Emma:

09 Feb 2012 2:27:29pm

Huonian, apparently we are not smart enough to filter out the propagandising. Hence we run around agreeing "we're all roooned" economically speaking, in complete opposition to what the world's economists have to say about Australia's economic performance prospects. I used to believe that people were such pushovers out of ignorance. But these days, as you say, there are so many information sources available courtesy of the internet. So it seems we are wilfully ignorant. This innate reluctance (laziness?) of the population to informing itself has been used to striking effect by all sorts of propagandists across history: look to Paul Goebbels, John Howard (and his love child Tony) and even may TV evangelist types for examples. In fact there is a video going around the traps of Lord Monckton (sponsored by Gina for his 'what environment??' Australian speaking tour) advising Gina and others in her echelon of this very fact in a high powered meeting room. Monckton is recorded urging her and her group to gain control of the main stream media, such as Murdoch had with Fox in the US, to further the right wing agenda in Australia.

harry:

09 Feb 2012 3:12:48pm

It's funny to hear so many people here at the ABC argue that The Age is centre-right and this is all a figment of a fetid right-wing uninformed mind.

Strangely, The Age's former editor and a man of the left, Michael Gawenda seems to disagree (but what would he know). In his books he has admitted to never hiring a conservative opinion writer and the the default setting for Australian journalists was to the left.

GregT:

10 Feb 2012 7:53:11am

I'd like to believe that Australians are intelligent, sensible people who draw their information from a range of sources, but every time I start to, I meet someone who's outraged about a story they read in The Onion.

MightyM:

09 Feb 2012 1:14:08pm

"Much though Andrew Bolt may despise the chattering classes, it's they who subscribe to the hard copy versions of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.' So the "Us and Them in Australia" now boils down to the "chattering classes" and "bombastic loons" like Bolt - no wonder the bulk of the young are escaping in the world of gaming and the cults of fame and reality TV. Makes you want to weep.

Tom:

09 Feb 2012 1:16:16pm

"McKnight has his own political leanings, which are certainly not to the right." Holmes considers it immaterial to mention that David McKnight is from the lunatic left, a former member of the Australian Communist Party and editor of its newspaper, the Tribune. God help journalism when he is instructing would-be reporters in leftwing propaganda techniques, cradled by taxpayers and the lunatic left of Australian academia.

Jack of All Tradies:

09 Feb 2012 1:21:56pm

Wood buys a business with the express intent of closing it, and he is a hero.

Gina buys part a business to keep it alive and is demonised.

Only on our ABC.

Your implication that bolt was hired on reinharts direction and works to her instructions is clear, that you mention the possibility and time line is an obvious attempt to make readers draw those conclusion as a fact.

Jonathan Holmes:

09 Feb 2012 2:09:59pm

Jack of All Tradies: I did not imply, and do not for a moment think, that Andrew Bolt "was hired on Reinhart's direction and works to her instructions". Bolt's views and leanings are well known, and he delivers them on The Bolt Report just as he does in his columns, his blog and on MTR. He would not take instructions from anyone. I'm simply saying that even if Gina Reinhart did not initiate the invitation to Bolt to present his own program on Ten, she certainly would have supported it. So, for that matter, would Lachlan Murdoch, and James Packer, who was on Ten's Board at the time (he left weeks before The Bolt Report went to air). I doubt if it would have happened before these three became directors of Ten.

Cap'n:

09 Feb 2012 5:02:05pm

Additionally, the conditions under which Graeme Wood purchased the woodchip mill is that he keep it running for a number of years to help transition the workforce until the planned-for eco-venture is up and running (and locally staffed, as is their intention).

Compare this to the typical multinational behaviour where an underperforming or undesired asset is simply shut down with no concern at all for worker welfare.

Interestingly, the problems that Wood has had in getting the mill back up and running is the forestry suppliers in getting timber to the mill, not Wood and/or Cameron prosecuting some leftie conspiracy themselves.

Bud Peart:

09 Feb 2012 2:15:45pm

Gina runs businesses that strip mine our assets to sell to a Chinese dictatorship. A regime that runs gulags, has no political freedom, uses slave and child labor and is in the process of becoming a huge regional military power thanks to her minerals. Her business's cause massive environmental damage and help push up the cost of living costing all of us thousands a year in excess mortgage payments.

Wood buys a massively polluting business and shits it down to save the environment.

a country gal:

09 Feb 2012 3:38:38pm

Precisely, and she advocates to bring in some of these slaves with some help from Clive when they attempt to set up their Northern Economic Zone. Her political persuasions do not fit the character test of being a major media player. Graeme Wood does.

Bud Peart:

09 Feb 2012 8:45:57pm

Mate the discussion is about Gina Rhinehart. If you can't provide a valid retort to what I said and have to pose other unrelated questions as your only response then your position is completely hollow.

Got anything better instead of crying about minority parties who get 5% the funding of the majors.

OUB :

10 Feb 2012 9:43:01am

Rinehart and other major miners sell a lot of minerals to China and pay a lot of taxes on the profits. We benefit from those taxes. If you are going to get precious about China at least recognise we are benefitting from the process as well.

If there was such a close linkage between the major parties and a business deal would you be so sanguine? Apart from NSW Labor and developers of course.

Alan :

Coconut:

09 Feb 2012 5:54:25pm

I look forward to a future column written by Monckton in the Fairfax press under the stewardship of Ms Reinhart. I may even buy a copy of The Age or SMH if the Fairfax press held a range of diverse views and opinion including those of the far Right. This is the nub of Mr Holmes article that so irritates the center Left who think their narrow viewpoint is mainstream and that all other views should be ignored.

hugh carnaby-sirius:

09 Feb 2012 2:45:54pm

Well, aren't you right whingers getting sensitive! Where, in this article, is Wood described as hero? Nope, didn't think you could find it. Nor is Rinehardt demonised for her alleged intent to 'keep the business open'. In fact, she's not demonised at all, for anything.

Dean of the Alice:

Alpo:

09 Feb 2012 3:07:06pm

Jack, I certainly agree with you that private investment in any business (that produces jobs) is welcome. And I would welcome Rinehart's move wholehartedly if she planned to keep the Fairfax's newspapers even at the current level of balance (I read The Age). But I fear that that's not going to happen. She is very likely to prefer a shift towards blatantly supporting the Coalition. If that happens, then their chances to wing will skyrocket, and if they win, then you can bid farewell to far more jobs than you can even imagine.... Remember the mantra that is already circulating: "We have to repay Labor's debt". In Coalition's jargon that means: unemployment, lower working conditions, decrepit infrastructure, lower salaries, decaying public services. Is that what you want?

a scientist:

09 Feb 2012 1:22:18pm

Thank you Mr Holmes, it is a great pleasure to hear an analytical and mostly unbiased interpretation of the situation. Lets hope things out to the better. I think the country has had enough right wing white Australia megaphone shouters in the past. Time to move on.

OUB :

09 Feb 2012 3:32:45pm

Unbiased? Everyone has there biases, Jonathan has more than most. He can't help but make a feeble attempt at continuing to link Bolt's employment at TEN with Rinehart. Look at the coverage of the Canberra disturbance on Mediawatch - it was only Sattler and Hodges apparently, the timeline went back no further. Nothing on the incestuous nature of the information exchanges between the PMO and the press gallery, it was only Hodges and Sattler that could possibly have distorted Abbott's reply apparently.

ABC 4 ALP:

micka:

09 Feb 2012 1:26:11pm

So, having spent a great deal of his post suspecting - for thats as high as he can put it - that Rinehart is seeking political influence, Holmes concludes that We don't know, because she ain't saying. And she couldnt do it at Fairfax anyway.Seems to me that Holmes had put the latest media moral outrage to rest.

hugh carnaby-sirius:

bradfordlad:

09 Feb 2012 7:49:35pm

Then he would have been a better man than I am, Gunga Din - and I supect than you are. That mob weren't in the mood for a quiet chat over a latte. Just as the very same people weren't when they went berserk in WA. (And I don't mean similar - I mean the same).

If I believed in a higher power I would pray to it to deliver us from any form of government that they would propose.Now let's get back on topic.

Jay Kay:

The problem is that as soon as you scratch the surface, that point can be seen to rest on a swag of dodgy assumptions and simplifications.

The assumption in this piece is that the actions of Wood and of Rinehart are equivalent, but on different sides of the political spectrum.

But they're not. Clearly.

It is completely obvious (in an Emperor's New Clothes kind of way) that Rinehart is seeking to reduce the press freedom of Fairfax (by controlling it), while Wood is seeking to increase press freedom (or at least *diversity*) by funding an independent stable of journalists.

Yes, their actions are both in their respective interests, but let's not be so nave to think Rinehart is acting in the public's interest and that Wood is not.

OUB :

I am surprised you don't have enormous fun pointing out to Bolt and his readers all his dodgy assumptions and simplifications, if his opinions are so noxious.

It's so completely obvious that Rinehart is seeking to reduce press freedom that the thought seems not to have occurred to anyone else. What do you expect her to do, take over Fairfax and close it down? Write the journos' copy for them? Implant subliminal messages for all those not wearing tinfoil hats?

If Rinehart is a two issue person as the writer seems to believe she'll soon run out of either things to say or people to read her stories. If she tries to control her journos too tightly (even before her advent I think it was a leftie Jennifer Hewitt saying The Oz was a freer place to work) those journos will soon be looking for greener pastures.

As a conservative (I think - I did get a tertiary education a way back so according to Jonathan I may not exist) I'm fine with Wood setting up a website and adding a voice. If it turns out to be dominated by left voices well it will end up being just another echo chamber where no light penetrates. People want to read that, fine by me.

As far Rinehart goes she couldn't impose herself on Fairfax to anything like the degree you imagine without killing it. Pointless. My guess is she wants the kudos of being a mini-media Baroness and more cups of tea with politicians. She will have to think of something interesting to say to get repeat invitations.

a country gal:

09 Feb 2012 1:34:00pm

G'day Johnathon and thanks for your critique.Global Mail is exciting and been reading since day one. Really interesting and informative articles. Since the Gina move, I've been reading so, so much to establish more new news bases. I'm a crikey subscriber too. Political comment moving to the right has been clearly evident in The Age since PM Gillard succeeded Rudd. Ms Gina has is blatantly aiming for political influence rather than financial gain. Given her excessive wealth it is no doubt her intention to sway Govt policy even more than she has previously. If by standing and yelling from the back of a truck with her mate Twiggy can influence Kevin Rudds future- what will her power be with more interests (4>14%) in Fairfax be.If Graeme Wood can start up for $15M why would Gina invest $192 M so far with a 14% interest. Will Clive jump in too? Or just speculating, he could buy Gina out of Channel 10, giving Gina the legality to purchase more Fairfax stock and become the Head Honcho. I fear for our liberty if that were to eventuate. MSM is in a perilous state. Given 4 Corners is even to report on the obsessive speculation that is "The Leadership Battle" ; Michele Grattans love child for the past year or more. Your report on the media re the OZ Day melee on Monday nights show was exposing and duly warranted. A community paper- The Weekly Advertiser (owned by Rupert Murdochs late sisters family ) in this weeks editorial was much of the same stuff in all the majors. A racist beat up. Reports, coverage angles/slants and editorial content shape the way the nation views or rationalises events. The federal govt already have a hostile media, so where to from here?

I won't even comment on Bolt and his influence on the sheeples.BTW Fairfax Press , as part of it stable owns Rural Press- many urban readers would be unaware of the vast population and breadth of the nation that those publications reach.

LeftRightOut:

09 Feb 2012 1:57:39pm

Country Gal, you just made Bolt's point... the news services you claim to subscribe to are all left leaning. You aspouse the same leftist critique of Gine R, your assertion that Michelle Gratten (of all people) is somehow working against the government...

The problem for most people, is they cannot see what others can. You probably are blissfully unaware that your content come with a heavy lefist bias, just like Bolt's readers source comes from the right. Neither examples are extreme (left or right), but most people don't seem to grasp that they're biased one way or another, like it's some sin to take a position.

I for one, welcome bias in anyone, as long as they are aware of it, and admit it.I believe Bolt often mentions his conservative perspective (he also worked for the ALP in the past, too), yet I don't see too many (Holmes is a good example) of from the left admitting their [leftist] bias.

I'm not criticising your affiliation/bias, whatever... just pointing out that it's perfectly fine to be left/right/whatever... just don't lie about it :-)

a country gal:

09 Feb 2012 4:19:47pm

I am absolutely 100% aware my comment espoused my leftist leanings ( I'm not in a sarcastic joking mood today). The point of difference being with Left leaning to Right leaning publications is often whether they are positive or negative. The Global Mail (only 3 days old) will be no doubt heavily focus on environmental issues and human justice. Crikey, is blatantly political/topical- I've noticed several articles posted there that are also posted here or in The Age. I also have a browse at The Sun for interest sake and do a comparison on how the same subject manner is reported- often very interesting to analyse. So, yes I read Bolt ( know his bio) from time to time and find his manner offensive- designed with provocation in mind, the shock jock of the press. If I'm feeling a bit investigative I'll surf the net and read some Press or UK. I've read fascist (storm trooper) blogs, Al Jazeera you name it So yes I'm a bit of a media junkie. But I expect that I and the general population be able to read or listen to truthful accounts of importance, not head liner "stories" with big pictures no content or misleading unscientific data. Hence, obviously my preference to left leaning media. I even listen to Radio National all day and most of the night (shock/horror) another lefty self revelation.Gina R worries me greatly, she aspires to be a clone in political thought to that of her father- not for the common good. I can ascertain the difference between right and wrong, some can't. Clearly I've taken a position, wouldn't have posted otherwise> so I don't get your ref to sin? We have only 2 major players in the Press, if they follow a similar editorial direction that could jeopardise our national psyche and influence govt policy. I am not a liar and was transparent in my post. In fact I've always been told I'm too honest for my own good.N.B I've read Michelle Grattan for years and have always found her to be extremely articulate and objective, not so of late. She writes too often now with bitterness and has a particular vindictiveness to the PM, her articles are sadly repetitious and predictable- I miss her old self.So there! Have a great day.

Trekka:

10 Feb 2012 6:46:56am

Thank you, a very comprehensive description of confirmation bias, that is, you find the writers that align with your world view are the least biased. Do I have your permission to use this as case study?

OUB :

09 Feb 2012 4:11:47pm

You're funny. You laugh at rightie 'sheeple' but proudly display your leftie websites to show how thoroughly you've embraced Jonathan's presumed politics. Forget about slavishly following the left cause of the week, think for yourself. See that crap flows in all directions.

MJMI:

09 Feb 2012 1:34:19pm

A university educated professional and therefore, by definition, a member of an elite and of the chattering classes, I have long preferred the ABC over commercial channels and read the Fairfax press when I chose a paper.

After four years of living overseas I was looking forward to being able to watch ABC TV and to buy The Age on Saturday. But I regret to report my total disappointment. I long ago gave up reading the Murdoch press and last Saturday, faced with a plethora of baseless articles on the return of Kevin Rudd as PM, I gave up on The Age. I will still buy The Canberra Times on Saturdays as it features very good book reviews. But otherwise let Gina Rinehart do her worst as it can't be any less readable than what Fairfax is offering now- her "opinion" is worth as much as Grattan's or Carney's or Hartcher's or Flitton's, since none of them care much for including a few facts.

Regrettably I must add that I am also depressed with the ABC and the quality in its journalism. I was so looking forward to being able to listen to Fran Kelly but now no longer bother. Chris Uhlmann has taken 7:30 down to the level of his competitors. The Drum has many writers whose articles are not worth my time - Berg, Reith, Wolff, Rosewarne to name just four this week. The Drum on ABC1 at 6 pm is a very hit and miss affair now and on Tuesday night, between a fawning, giggling Annabelle Crabb as host and the absolutely boring Peter Reith talking about his column that I had carefully avoided reading that day, I turned it off by 6:15.

Now I read that next Monday Four Corners is to devote itself to the Rudd for PM debate. Are there no depths you will not stoop to?

The Australian media is in a parlous state of its own making. It does nothing to deserve my time and attention.

OUB :

MJMI:

10 Feb 2012 12:21:18pm

No I don't want to go there and muttering is not my style, though I must confess I have spent some time recently shouting at the tv as my dear old dad used to do. Which is why I have given up bothering with so much of what passes for political comment - it's not good for my blood pressure to be so cross.

I've found that there are lots of good books being published at the moment so I've downloaded them to my kindle and am spending my time reading interesting books instead.

And I should have mentioned one ABC service that I really love - ABC FM radio. It's an absolute treasure.

Roo from the Bush:

09 Feb 2012 5:48:13pm

I agree with your comments about the way that Chris Ulmann has reduced the tone of the 7.30 Report. It was the one news program that I used to watch for a balanced view and worthwhile interviews. Ulmann now simply uses interviews to impose his own view of the world on the interviewees. It's awful and, like you, I no longer watch it. I had hoped the Drum would at least offer a better view but I have also been very disappointed in Annabel Crabb's attempts to persuade us that her invited independent experts are anything more than her mouthpieces. The so-called Communications Expert she had on last night to tell us his view of the latest satellite broadband service was a joke. He spent more time telling us the Government was stupid than he did telling us why or saying anything factual about the technology. No wonder people are moving to new services that offer alternative views.

a country gal:

09 Feb 2012 10:59:24pm

I rather be out in the garden than watch the 7.30 report any more. Used to be a great informative program. Can't remember the last time I viewed- maybe a couple after Ulmann began to host> tuned out. And now after reading today about our beloved 4 crns, re jumping on the speculation bandwagon. Wonder where our iconic show is heading- please let it be an one of!. Media is no doubt in a strange space these days.See what winter brings when I'm inside after my gardening earlier 0of an evening and it's too dark to tend to the more meaningful things in life. The ABC should keep it in their mission statement to report the facts rather than re enter the foray that is comm media. They will retain their core group of viewers and their integrity.

Mark James:

If Rinehart wanted a stake in newspapers, why not News Ltd? No point. Uncritical support already in the bag.

Is the Fairfax editorial team likely to give up its independence? No, but influence might trickle down in more subtle ways.

Jonathan, your "the attempt might be unhelpful to Fairfax Media" is an understatement. Don't you think it would be cheaper and easier for a multi-billionaire to simply kill critical voices rather than attempting to retrain them?

OUB :

09 Feb 2012 4:44:50pm

You could probably buy Fairfax for a bit over 2 billion. News' capitalisation (not sure if this is just the Australian listed ordinary and preference shares, probably is) is around 45 billion. Fairfax has no dominant holder. News has a dominant holder and some devoted investors. Understanding that would you like to rethink?

What are the subtle ways in which Rinehart (who has no sign of subtlety so far) would influence Fairfax? Where are these fascinating rightie journalists she would gather into a welcoming Fairfax bosom? Who would read such a monochrome organ of the press?

OUB :

10 Feb 2012 11:21:46am

It is fair to suggest Cadzow won't be doing a follow up any time soon but if you want to write one and submit it to News or Crikey or whomever there's a fair chance they'll run it. Cadzow was happy to do some TV on the piece after Rinehart got involved so my guess is she isn't feeling to concerned.

Normally the moderator doesn't publish posts touching on killing. Granted you weren't advocating such but it came over a touch unbalanced, to me at least.

corrupt practices:

09 Feb 2012 1:42:12pm

'Let's further acknowledge that more tertiary-educated, professional people (as opposed to self-employed small business people and big business executives) vote Labor or Green than Liberal or National - these are the 'liberal elites' and 'chattering classes' so often scorned by the likes of Andrew Bolt. ' A fact which Bolt hates, as he could only hack a year at uni.

Damian:

09 Feb 2012 1:44:54pm

I think that this selfserving statement sets the whole tone of what follows:

"The Global Mail is not likely to appeal to Andrew Bolt's readers. It is more likely to appeal to tertiary-educated, professional people, with an appetite for long, considered and not especially up-to-the-minute stories from around the world."

and "Chattering classes". My goodness... The air it thick with snobbery.

Maybe Holmes should employ a subeditorbefore he published this confused rant that was meant to be about Gina; morphed a rant about Murdoch and Bolt; then ended up with no substancial argument at all.

Interpretation: Rich people who buy a minority share in a media organization are scary. Uless they are nice rich people who support your views.

Coconut:

09 Feb 2012 6:23:44pm

Very true. What continually surprises me is how people like Mr Holmes fear the rise of Andrew Bolt's influence. A few years ago The Chaser boys branded Bolt as the lone climate change idiot - the denier and they mocked him unmercifully. He was pretty well a voice in the wilderness then. Today, his influence grows. From Climate Change denial to the politics of Multiculturalism to White Aboriginals to Right Wing politics. Bolt makes good sense and argues his points very well. People that mock him, misjudge his tenacity and intelligence. The world is turning to the Right. He is in ascendancy. Because in the end when all is measured equally - the politics of the Left Green alliance is a vision based on a romantic unsustainable fantasy. Its a vision that has no future and will be neutralized and ignored in the coming years. Biased Media outlets and governments that supports these narrow utopian views will go the same way.

Sharra:

09 Feb 2012 9:35:02pm

How sad that people like you are in the ascendancy. I am glad that I have no children and I hope that I will not live to see the planet destroyed by the greed and stupidity of the right. The so called utopian views that want to see the planet survive despite man are trying to ensure that we do not end up in a poluted world where the air is poisonous and nothing lives outside of the enclosed cities.

Oh but I forget according to people like you it is pure fantasy to think that the planet will die if nothing is done to save it. That is the trouble. If you are right we have lost nothing trying to save it. If I am right that the planet is in danger then the future is very bleak indeed for everyone even the super rich. Once the forrests are dead and all the natural water is poisoned everyone will lose.

Graham:

09 Feb 2012 1:46:40pm

Excellent article thankyou.

The crux of the matter is as you say, lack of diversity in media ownership. 11 of the 12 major newspapers in Australia are owned by Rupert Murdochs News Corporation or John Fairfax Holdings. In fact, Murdoch bestrides the Australian media landscape like a colossusNewsCorp owns 8 of that 12, and also dominate the regional and suburban newspaper publishing industry, as well as owning a major slice of Foxtel. The Australian people have less different voices to use upon which to make their decisions than almost any other place in the free world. Influential political blogger with US website The Nation, John Nicholls, said in Australia last year that, despite the new players, content and platforms, people have never received less information and less of it from alternative sources. Goebbels would be most envious, but approve of the propaganda spewing from his right wing devotees.

Ronk:

09 Feb 2012 1:48:21pm

"Let's further acknowledge that more tertiary-educated, professional people (as opposed to self-employed small business people and big business executives) vote Labor or Green than Liberal or National"

Instead of demanding that people acknowledge this audacious claim just because you have made it, how about producing some actual evidence for it?

I mix with a lot of tertiary-educated professional people (as opposed to self-employed small business people and big business executives), and insofar as they mention political parties, in the vast majority of cases it is to speak positively about the Lib/Nats and/or negatively about Labor/Greens.

Over the hill:

10 Feb 2012 1:24:07am

Hmm Ronk , while you are at it.Here's one for you.Born late 1950's. Tertiary educated. Trade. Small business Owner/OperatorChange of careers few times.Mother of two.Small business operator in various types of business.Employer including apprenticeship training/ full time and casuals.Self employed, employing, employee.Now retired.Pension.Where do I fit in your model?

Microseris:

09 Feb 2012 1:49:25pm

Nicely articulated. No one could reasonably argue with the content.

Ties in nicely with the recent article in the Guardian noting the how "Conservatism thrives on low intelligence". This article refers to a Canadian study - Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

Ironic really, low intelligence and usually at the lower end of the socio economic scale, whipped up to a frenzy by the likes of Dolt, supporting the wealthy right wing - Howard and Bush. For Howard, all that dog whistling paid off nicely..

Over the hill:

coco:

09 Feb 2012 1:51:44pm

You would expect Bolt to take this position. He got his gig promoting right-wing and anti Gillard govt. trash on TEN as a result og Gina RHinehart gettin on the TEN board. Soon all of the media will be controlled by the extreme right. Watch out then for some revisionst media and govt.

ABC 4 ALP:

09 Feb 2012 10:12:00pm

It's a lofty goal but I doubt that it will happen.How will they get hold of Miss Attard's mob. How will they take control of the ABC?Btw, if you consider Australian business people to be of the 'extreme right', where do you place folk such as members of the National Front, skinheads etc in your balanced spectrum?

Ricardo K:

09 Feb 2012 1:53:10pm

Jonathan, thanks for the link to the Global Mail.

Even though I never read Bolt's work, it's hard to escape the echoes and I am always astonished at his ability to doublethink while shooting his own argument in the head. So Graham Wood, reportedly worth $372m, is "super-rich" but Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart are billionaire battlers trying to save the world from the economy-wrecking greenies? Describing Woods' $15m investment in new media as a purely political play merely draws attention to the fact that Ms Rinehart may expect a non-financial dividend from her much larger investment in Fairfax and Ten.

ABC 4 ALP:

09 Feb 2012 10:16:03pm

Do the good folk at Fairfax, GetUp and the ABC write articles and pay for ads objecting to Mr Wood's control of a media outlet? If not, why not?Does Mr Wood's Global Mail present all sides of all issues or only the left?

Trekka:

09 Feb 2012 1:53:29pm

However you failed to mention that the chattering classes have the ABC itself to provide the ballance.

It is indeed remarkable how unconscious the ABC is of its own bias. An example: After long running objections that Phillip Adams' unashamed left-wing show runing 4 nights a week with no balance, the ABC finally conceded and introduced Counterpoint for 1 day a week as "balance". Last week in a promo for Counterpoint, the announcer described the show as "contrarian". This was repeated a day or two later. I would agree that it is indeed contrarian when compared to the left-wing groupthink of the majority of ABC presentations rather than simply the views of the centre right, and as you point out, the majority view of Australians in general.

GraemeF:

09 Feb 2012 6:50:02pm

Phillip Adams does not go into a partisan political rant on his show. He interviews a wide range of intelligent people from different fields, politics, religion, philosophy, arts etc. He can be a bit of a knob sometimes but to hold him up as some kind of left wing firebrand is hilarious. You obviously don't listen to his show, each night is different while your average and far more numerous, right wing shock jock or trollumnist is like a broken record.

Trekka:

10 Feb 2012 7:00:31am

Excuse me but I never accused Adam's of ranting. I have listened to him for very many years, in fact I'm somewhat a fan of his but that does not mean I agree with his political position of which he is in fact quite proud of and regularly restates whenever he has an appropriate context right down to often fondly mentioning his membership of the Communist Party in his early days.

If you bother to listen to Counterpoint you will find that it is every bit as moderate in expressing their political position as Adams and features guests every bit as intellectual and interesting as LNL. The left does not have a monopoly on intellect; please have little bit of an open mind, it helps defeat confirmation bias.

larry:

09 Feb 2012 1:53:31pm

Thanks for your admission that Fairfax is needed to "balance" Murdoch. It is a tacit admission that The Age and SMH are just as out of whack with reality as you perceive Murdoch to be. But that's OK with you, Jonathan, because those Fairfax types are your kind of people.

By the way, can you point me to an Age equivalent of the Australian's Steketee, Sheridan and Adams? You won't find one. The rotten paper will not even run Henderson's columns, its environmental reporters make no bones about being activists, and if a story is inconvenient, it doesn't get published at all.

I've voted Labor and Liberal in the last two elections, and I don't like Bolt's harping about the same tired subjects all the time. But the Age is a parody of a newspaper, and if you took your job seriously you would take it to task for the bad journalism that has pushed it to the brink of extinction.

David Nicholas:

09 Feb 2012 1:56:19pm

Thanks, Jonathon

You excellent report explains to me why Ms. Rinehart only purchased a chunk of Faifax rather than the whole shebang. That her dad tried media ownership to influence things and failed, seems to explain her actions in this matter. Also I am fine with her being free to do as she wishes, buying into Fairfax for whatever reason.

What is more interesting is why Andrew Bolt has got his knickers in a twist about a website, which as far as I have checked out needs an IPad App and along with savvy and timely tweeter updates, which at this point don't enthrall me to check out the stories on offer. It seems he is very threatened by another media voice which he thinks is opposed to his views. I mean the man is the most widely read columnist in the country, with all his power, why does he appear to be so insecure by a website which at the moment takes a lot of effort to navigate? Is he worried that while Mr. Wood has guaranteed the existence of Globam Mail for five years, he might not last as long? It just seems like too much hard work to fret over something which has a fraction of a percent in the Australian media world. It just seems like an elephant trying to step on a flea.

But Rupert Murdoch anti-intellectualism has interested me, since Gough Whitlam over lunch one day, told the media baron what he really thought of him. I believe it was something along the lines that he was a pseudo-intellectual. Well, for someone like Mr. Murdoch whom I knew at the time hungered to be regarded as someone of high intelligence, that he was still feeling vulnerable about inheriting his newspaper empire from his dad and at the time was still regarded as not being regarded as a self-made man, it was the insult never to be forgotten. From then on to my recollection he went after Whitlam, doing everything in his power to destroy and destabilize the Whitlam government, which he succeeded at, using his New York correspondent Peter Michelmore to make the case.

At the time I was player in Canberra, which is why I remember it so well.

However, that was then, a long, long time ago. We are all a little longer on the tooth, and wiser, but the memory is clear and the names not forgotten. We go on.

Ronk:

09 Feb 2012 3:27:21pm

Not that I am an admirer of Bolt, but I'm sure that if somebody defamed you, on even the most obscure website, by naming you as part of a supposed evil conspiracy which was quite false, you would get your knickers in a knot and defend your reputation by whatever means you had at your disposal.

OUB :

09 Feb 2012 5:21:25pm

I have only read Jonathan's story. Sounds like he took exception to lefties blathering about Rinehart buying into media (nowhere near enough to exert any control) at the same time as they were exalting about The Global Mail. There's a point there, whether you agree with it or not.

I can't see why Woods couldn't keep his venture going for five years, presuming his health holds out. Gordon Barton kept his Nation Review (not so interested in facts but probably more entertaining) going for eleven. Or if you're talking about Bolt he only has his health to worry about. There should always be a need for controversial right voices to fill a corner of a newspaper or website and there is hardly an oversupply.

Poor old Gough was never very politic for a politician. You would have thought he had enough enemies without seeking out more. All is vanity.

David Nicholas:

09 Feb 2012 8:20:12pm

Well, to your last point about Whitlam, it's an easy out to say that he was not very politique, unless you were there and part of what went on. The recent histories about the ALP at that period are not kind to Whitlam's style. But unless you were part of a government that had not seen power for a quarter century or more, you knew mistakes would be made and they were.

But governments get elected in part for the vision they offer and Whitlam was the perfect communicator for "it's time." At that moment in our history, you went with the possibilities of where we could go as a country and overlooked the errors and missteps in lieu of what could be done. On the whole, Whitlam's abilities to inspire crowds and rule a very tough caucus at the same time made him very adept. It made him one of the best PMs this country has ever had. But you had to be there to know.

When you look at what followed, the light had gone out, Now and again we get glimmers of good government, but at one point there was a fine example to look to and it was Whitlam. These days when there is a difference on offer, we turn and hide our eyes in favor of the familiar. Pity that. Too damn bad. And we move on.

Greg:

09 Feb 2012 2:04:36pm

Quite apart from his cynical attempt to derail the point you make very clearly here -- that more Graeme Woods in a Murdoch-dominated media landscape mean more diversity, and more Gina Rineharts mean less -- Andrew Bolt is guilty of a massive conflict of interest in spruiking Rinehart's media investments in this way.

Eskimo:

09 Feb 2012 2:07:30pm

Let's remember that Fairfax is a commercial operations that exists to make a return for its shareholders. It is being outsold by its nearest competitor by almost 3 to 1. If it could capture a greater market share by moving its editorial stance closer to the market (i.e. move conservative), it stands to reason it would generate more sales.

Media diversity for diversity sake should not be a consideration for a commercial operation.

Sholto Douglas:

09 Feb 2012 2:10:02pm

I agree that Rineharts motives on Fairfax might not be purely financial, but as you suggest, she has little chance of changing its political inclinations. After all, there is nothing to show for repeated attempts to shift the political culture of the ABC.You hint at an automatic link between being intellectual (and tertiary educated) and being left. Yes many leftists do indeed have Uni degrees, but in what? In the Dept of Maths and Computer Science I saw very few ardent progressives, ditto in Engineering or business oriented disciplines. The link seems to be between the hard and soft sciences the right predominate in the former, the left in the latter. Dont try telling me that Gender Studies requires the same intellectual horsepower as Electrical Engineering.Finally you suggest that Murdoch imposes his views through his media. Well hes not doing a very good job of it. For example he is known to support action on climate change, but as you all know, this is hardly reflected in The Australian.

Andrew:

Dino no to be confused with:

09 Feb 2012 2:14:03pm

Thank You Jonathan,I believe the issue of media ownership has subsided with the increase of the uptake of the 'interweb'. It is easy to view different perspectives on new and old stories.Thanks for the link to The Global Mail. It is reassuring to see it and articles of decent word length. Is it me or is it real that 'people' don't read alot or at length anymore? How can we find the time to examine all the opinions and facts available? "Working Families" have little disposable time. I guess that is the result of a level playing field and globalisation. The economics has shifted from distribution of labour to distribution of time.

Joyce:

09 Feb 2012 2:14:46pm

It's the anger coming from a 'Big Polloodah' that fuels thefire of hate and division. Whether one is a 'left-winger' or a 'right-winger' a prime concern must be, surely, that an autocracy is no longer valid. When the privileged among us throw their weight around they'll crush democracy. Is fighting for supremacy providing prosperity to the many?

Sandi K:

09 Feb 2012 2:15:16pm

What of the current raid by Gina Rinehart on Fairfax?

Last week, enviro-blogger, Graham Readfearn, exposed Christopher Monckton (who has been sponsored by Rinehart to push the free-market, climate skeptic agenda) urging the super rich at a mining strategy think tank to capture the high ground on what are still the major media.

Sounds like Rinehart was listening.

The mining industry is spending up big on political campaigning most of it political donations to the Liberal and National parties.

The Australian Electoral Commission revealed a spend of $8 million in the 2010/2011 year on top of $22 million the previous year. Another $70 million in political donations is unaccounted for, thanks mostly to Howards trigger for transparency being raised from $1,000 to $11,500.

Not surprisingly, neither the Labor Party nor the Greens received a cent.

Jimbob:

Hubert:

09 Feb 2012 2:23:19pm

Well summed up Jonathan.

It seems clear to me that the motives behind the Global Mail and Rinehart's media interests are poles apart.

The Global Mail seems to be aiming for neutral analytical reporting, despite Bolt's accusations of left leaning tendencies. That they sought two News Ltd journalists adds strength to this argument. I suspect that any view to the left of his own (far right view) is considered left winged by Bolt, despite that the article may well be right of centre. An article sympathetic to Turnbull highlights this.

Rinehart's motives, although unstated, must be assumed to be about control. It is highly unlikely that her motives are financial, so by a process of elimination, it seems logical to assume her interest is in propagating her views. Whether or not Bolt's show was at her behest is irrelevant.

stringalong:

09 Feb 2012 2:23:23pm

So Andrew Bolt gets 14 mentions in the first half of your diatribe, then is forgotten? What's going on, Jonnie? It's about time Mr Holmes realized he is out of touch, screeching into the trees to an audience of galahs. And may I point out, we've had one "exciting" "?" edition of naval watch and no hysterical defence of Wrong-call Flannery and The Temperature Of Doom. Not good enoughe Mr H. If you're with the clowns you have to perform in the Circus!

Adam:

09 Feb 2012 2:27:58pm

Thanks for your article. I would've thought you'd steer away from such crass generalisations as tertiary educated and professional people mostly vote Labor or Greens. The implication of course being that uneducated and tradies vote for the Liberals. I don't think that helps the debate and frankly didn't expect it from you.

In terms of the Global Mail. I think it would be helpful for them to employ an opposing writer, one who perhaps identifies himself as conservative. Interpretation is all in the eyes of the beholder. Two professional journalists witnessing the London Riots could come to two different conclusions. One that they were oppressed and merely lashing out at their misfortune. The other that they were hooligans rampaging out of control and demanded rights with no responsibility. Both viewpoints are valid and realistically both should be presented.

The problem I have with Andrew Bolt is that he presents a very black and white viewpoint. For him Global Warming isn't simply exaggerated by the climate lobby on occassions - but his position is that Global Warming doesn't even exist. This, in my opinion, is an extremist point of view. However, I think it would be reasonable to point out that the climate lobby has gone too far on many occassions and mislead the debate by exaggerating. It is regrettable and should be pointed out, but it doesn't mean that every credible climate scientist in the world is engaged in a conspiracy.

My point is that the Global Mail, and perhaps even the ABC, would greatly benefit in my opinion from having such opposing views presented equally. Let the readers be the judge.

Brett:

09 Feb 2012 4:45:47pm

Well said Adam. But to say Andrew Bolt completely denies Global Warming exists is wrong. Take some time to get through his ranting and raving about far left loons and you'll find he questions whether man is having such a significant impact on our climate as what some would have us believe.

Mason:

09 Feb 2012 2:28:49pm

"Let's acknowledge that, on the strength of its first few days online, The Global Mail is not likely to appeal to Andrew Bolt's readers. It is more likely to appeal to tertiary-educated, professional people, with an appetite for long, considered and not especially up-to-the-minute stories from around the world."

For all the left's professed love of humanity, there seems to be so much superiority fuelled disdain simmering just below the surface for the great unwashed.

OUB :

09 Feb 2012 6:10:44pm

I really do hope the GM turns out to be something more than a soothing voice telling its readers 'you're right, you're always right, we are the elite'. The capacity for self-delusion of some (emphasis) on the left is truly amazing.

ABC 4 ALP:

Global Male:

09 Feb 2012 2:32:33pm

I love the internal contradiction shown by all the like-minded correspondents who think those with different opinions must be so feeble-minded that they have been led like sheep by some foul Murdoch conspiracy to rule our thoughts. What I notice most is that the critics invariably parrot lines which have already been repeated ad nauseam by their own political group(think).

lovemedia:

09 Feb 2012 3:22:07pm

No one is left on the ABC board that Howard put there, they went years ago.

I think you might be exaggerating a little, "grinning at each other across a dead land filled with rottenness" but that's considered normal from the left when discussing anything they don't approve of.

I mean, if it is so obvious that conservatism and News Ltd is "evil", then why does Rupert with 32% of the newspaper market, have 70% of the readership?

Because he produces what mainstream wants, and you're clearly not mainstream .. are you?

Mark James:

Yes lovemedia, and the Mafia also outsells its rivals in many parts of the world.

Not that I'm likening the Murdoch Empire to the Mafia (as Hugh Grant and Tom Watson have), nor suggesting it is "evil" per se. But, it has been revealed as somewhat criminal recently.

*Two journalists jailed for illegally hacking phones. *Over 30 arrested in connection with illegal phone hacking.*Editor of The Times (James Harding) accused of withholding evidence from the high court. *High-profile columnist found guilty by a court of law for Racial Discrimination. *Engaged in close surveillance of lawyers of hacking victims, their families and members of the British Parliamentary Select Committee for the purpose of . . . what other possible reason than blackmail? *Engaged in predatory pricing to put competitors out of business (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/murdoch-guilty-in-times-price-war-1094999.html). *Found guilty of anticompetitive behavior and violations of antitrust laws in the US (see the settlement with Insignia Systems).*Provided illegal payments to UK police officers. *Oh, and incitement to murder (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fox-news-bob-beckel-calls_n_793467.html)

Sheila:

09 Feb 2012 10:25:14pm

11 of the 12 major newspapers in Australia are owned by Rupert Murdochs News Corporation or John Fairfax Holdings. In fact, Murdoch bestrides the Australian media landscape like a colossusNewsCorp owns 8 of that 12, and also dominate the regional and suburban newspaper publishing industry, as well as owning a major slice of Foxtel. The Australian people have less different voices to use upon which to make their decisions than almost any other place in the free world. And Rupert Murdoch is happy to wield his overwhelming power.

Ian:

09 Feb 2012 2:42:11pm

So a new left-wing publication is good because it increases media diversity, but someone buying into left-wing publications is bad because that reduces media diversity. Even if that someone is unlikely to be able to influence editorial policy.

Furthermore, an organisation which publishes left-wing newspapers is "a media company with a strong tradition of journalistic independence", but an organisation which publishes right-wing newspapers is "populist" and "a group-think collective".

Thanks Jonathon for clarifying that for us. Its good to know that we can rely on the presenter of ABC TV's totally impartial Media Watch for such sound opinion and advice.

Yoda:

09 Feb 2012 2:47:39pm

Interesting article Jonathan. Ruper may make no bones about using his papers to further right wing populist agenda but many of his readers are not so honest; or is it that the prefer to believe the propoganda in his papers as fact?Which brings me to your, I would say correct assertion, that News Ltd captures perfectly the fears and aspirations of a massive number of people.But what are these fears and aspirations? Now that is an interesting question. Are they real or are they created by the very medium which captures them- like any clever marketer? After all-the tobacco industry captured an even greater mass of people.I would say the American 'dream' or its equivalent of acquiring unlimited riches in the Pursuit of Happiness may have something to do with it.But as James Hillman said " You cannot pursue happiness- happiness is a by product- not something you pursue directly"I think you will find that if the mass of people woke up to that truth News Ltd would not have half the influence it does.

OUB :

09 Feb 2012 6:18:43pm

Don't worry friend, if you're lucky you'll have a good 20 years before you too are classed as a backward-looking fogey. Enjoy the time you have left. Wonder who's going to fund your websites when old media falls over. Hope you like looking at clips of other people's cats and kids on youtube.

mick from central vic:

Sheila:

09 Feb 2012 10:22:59pm

Too right there mick. Deceiving the public these days is a lucrative industry. Experienced PR practitioners now coerce you through astroturfing and other socially engineered forms of brainwashing to sacrifice your interests for those of their clients especially those with the biggest war chest the fossil fuel industry.

Indeed, it was the rise of citizens groups in the US opposing action on global warming that led Greenpeace to discover that these so-called grassroots uprisings were organised and funded by the fossil fuel lobby.

Public opinion is a precious commodity. Its what elects governments and governments can deliver profit and power to those whose largesse it enjoys. Todays PR supremos are making serious money out of commodifying public opinion, manipulating it and touting it to this ready market. PR spin is gradually replacing old fashioned journalism as the number of mainstream journalists dwindles.

Anthony:

09 Feb 2012 3:00:41pm

Surely in this day and age, any newspaper company should be happy to have anyone wanting to invest money in it.Surely it is a good thing to have Gina Rinehart wants to invest money. If she wants to take over Fairfax it makes it more likely newspapers will continue. Without the investment of someone like her, the long term trend for the Fairfax broadsheets, particularly The Age, is they evolve into an internet news website.

Anne:

09 Feb 2012 7:45:18pm

Smack on, Anthony. In the era of big government and big business we have never more needed big media. We have more diverse sources of information than ever before, but diversity isn't enough. Let's not disempower the few existing outlets that can genuinely scrutinise power.There's not a shred of evidence to suggest Gina Rinehart's investment is any less philanthropic than Graeme Wood's.

Sheila:

09 Feb 2012 10:21:25pm

Telephone hacking, blackmail, intimidation, provocation, invention, misrepresentation and sheer nastiness have been exposed as everyday tools of the journalists trade. It was not always like this. News used to be a valuable commodity. The public was prepared to pay for it. Every day, thousands of journalists armed with spiral-bound notebooks set off and tramped the streets in search of it.

Everything changed in 1981 when the supply of news items in the western world over a 24-hour period exceeded the demand. It took some time for media proprietors to react to this. In order to be valuable again, in order to persuade readers to pay for it, information not only had to be new but also had to have an angle, a twist that would make it irresistible. Opinionated or pundit journalism was one wayand it was no coincidence that the rise of the columnist accelerated in the eighties and nineties. But you cannot have a newspaper staffed solely by columnists. Celebrity journalism seemed to provide the ideal answer.

Journalists specialised in singling out victims, often celebrities they themselves had a hand in creating, and while being careful not to defame them worked them over with lurid attacks. Some of these attacks were personal, deliberately calculated to be hurtful and demeaning.

Sheila:

09 Feb 2012 10:24:17pm

Despite Australian media ownership being amongst the most concentrated in the world, at the behest of powerful proprietors, successive Australian Governments have gradually further relaxed media ownership rules. The most recent round was put in place in April 2007 under the Howard Government, where the new two out of three rule meant that companies are now allowed to own up to two media outlets television, radio and newspaper in a single area.

The reason given for the change by the then Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, was that convergence in the media industry as a result of news technologies, particularly the internet, meant that the old regime was ineffective. Unfortunately, the idea that mass media diversity doesnt matter, and that new players are threatening traditional sources is largely mythical. Influential political blogger with US website The Nation, John Nicholls, said in Australia last year that, despite the new players, content and platforms, people have never received less information and less of it from alternative sources.

Nicholls offered some troubling facts about journalism in the US, where there is far more diversity of mass media ownership than we have in Australia. He said that rather than offering a diversity of voices, individual journalists were typically obliged to produce content on a range of platformsvideo, audio and print. With owners having radio, TV and newspaper interests, this meant less journalists were requireda clear cost-benefit for proprietors.

Bighead1883:

09 Feb 2012 3:00:42pm

Thank you Jonathan,thought provoking.Even on the ABC non right wing commentary is either not printed or heavily censored.Yet the right wingers{whingers} like Big Pooloodah can and do say the most juvenile things which are promptly printed.Many write in about the OWS movement yet little is published.I know this from others at OWS.Rhinehardt`s agenda is to further her plutocratic domain,sure and simple.Yet Kerry Packer did it,Murdoch does it and governments court and courted them.Also Jonathan it`s almost impossible to see anything written of the hijacking of Democracy by Corporations.I`ve seen nothing written in Australia about www.thepeoplescongress.org along with the Keith Olbermann commentary.You would think that such big things would be mainstream.But no,the right wing media is suppressing it.The OWS Movement like the Anti-Vietnam War and Anti Apartheid Movements of the 60s and 70s will grow as the disenfranchised become more angry at the blatant right wing media silence and government inaction.You remember what they said in the 60s of Anti Vietnam War Protesters,{Dirty unwashed Hippies and Layabout University Students think they know better than the Government}.We all now know that the protesters were right all along,especially when their mothers and fathers marched and protested with them.Yes,I agree the furthering of right wing media can`t amount to any good.Gina Rhinehardt should take a look at Bill Gates philanthropy then consider herself more than fortunate,and look at the world as an all encompassing privilege to be so well off.

Pancake:

JL:

09 Feb 2012 3:07:43pm

I am not a chattering class academic that wants the long version, just want the truth. Hate reading Bolt for eg only to find further research discredits what he says. Why waste this time and why treat people like idiots? If these opinion writers really believe in their cause then the facts should support their argument.. no need for spin. The carbon tax debate, obviously polluted by garbage, lies spin as it is the cheapest option available to taxpayers, yet most do not know that. Only makes one think there is corruption in the media. Do not care if they are left, or right, just want them all to stop holding the nation in contemptt and just gives facts and we will make up minds. Thank you very much!

Greg melb:

09 Feb 2012 3:08:03pm

Left or right who cares ?. We all read what resonates with our world view . Fairfax. News corp. Global green mail, all push their view as do many others in this digital age . Dont get upset , read more diverse sources of information so you are not manipulated by "group think ".

OUB :

09 Feb 2012 6:31:21pm

Of course you're right. Everyone, except the truly boring, has their own worldview which informs their writing, providing ideas and giving direction. To hold anyone up as some kind of paragon of virtue who only writes the truth is foolish, it just describes someone whose prejudices most closely match the reader's.

paulh:

09 Feb 2012 3:09:33pm

What is Mr Holmes scared of ?? what is wrong with having a newspaper that doesn't pander to the labor governments whims or encourage such biase from the abc.Perhaps Mr Holmes doesn't like the idea of a level playing field. Mr Holmes should concentrate on his own programme and its content rather than attack people just because they have a differing view or opinion to his. How about attacking the ABC news reports regarding the labor/gillard orchastrated fiasco at the tent embassy, how about asking the ABC for an apology as Mr Abbott did NOT inflame the situation with his comments in fact it was far from Abbott it was due directly to a deceitful intervention by Gillards office/staff.Why not report on real facts instead of presumptions based on your own biased view of things.

Mark James:

09 Feb 2012 7:46:45pm

What is paulh scared of? What is wrong with having a commentator that doesn't pander to Coalition/Rinehart/Palmer/Packer/Murdoch whims? Perhaps paulh doesn't like the idea of a level playing field. paulh should concentrate on his own comments rather than attack people just because they have a differing view or opinion to his. How about attacking the Herald Sun news reports regarding the Abbott orchestrated fiasco at the tent embassy (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/time-for-tent-embassy-to-fold-says-tony-abbott/story-e6frf7jx-1226254319517)? Why not comment on real facts, paulh, instead of presumptions based on your own biased view of things?

Michael:

09 Feb 2012 3:17:14pm

My view of original, fearless, independent journalism might not be the same as someone elses. Surely one should read anything and make their own views and opinions. I see very little independent journalism myself from anywhere. It all seems to be pushing some agenda unless it is just factual such as, a train crashed today or there was a motor vehicle collision. Everything else is just basically opinions. Sometimes I find those who argue and twist the facts so badly, who attack others who do not believe as they do convince me that their beliefs and views are wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't twist things or attack those who don't agree would they? Global Warming or Climate Change is the perfect example of that. I don't believe it because of the fear campaign and none of the fears have eventuated and because of the attacks on those who don't agree. Something tells me that something is wrong. Tha'ts what happens when the story is not balanced and its critics are attacked for not what they say but who they are the story is not believeable. Rinehart for all I know might have every intention of sitting back and not getting involved in the day day running of the business. I don't know. No one does. But when people come out and start criticising and attacking without that knowledge something tells me its all about attacking the person and nothing else. I for one when hearing any complaints about Rinehart will have to be convinced more so than before because of the way she has been attacked. I believe many others will be as well.

JL:

09 Feb 2012 4:50:54pm

Even if factual the number of errors is scary. I get Qld Police news feeds on my FB account now and my perception of crime has greatly changed. Did not realise how much media cherry what crime to report on pick by race, location of crime etc etc.

The climate change debate was dishonest in itself as neither government or opposition were debating it at all, just which policy to meet pre set targets. It had nothing to do with whether we have carbon tax or not. Liberal policy is even worse and I predict a back flip in that they will not repeal carbon tax as the hit to taxpayers will be extra-ordinary.

Yet the debate in the press as hardly discussed what we have if we do not have carbon tax. Pink batts on steriods, tut tut.

Sheila:

10 Feb 2012 9:04:16am

Rinehart for all I know might have every intention of sitting back and not getting involved in the day day running of the business. Ignorance is no excuse. Even our legal system says so. Sorry to burst your corrupted view of Rhinhart but her actions speak for herelf.

In January 2010 the organisers of a tour to Australia of climate sceptic Christopher Monckton revealed that part of the $100,000 costs of the tour would be met by Rinehart. Rinehart also co-sponsored Monckton's 2011 visit, and bankrolled global warming sceptic Ian Plimer's visit to Perth in 2011 to address the attendees at the Boao Forum for Asia Perth conference. Rinehart was invited to attend a three day-wedding of the Sanjay Reddy's daughter. Not only did Rinehart attend but she took along the Liberal Party's deputy leader Julie Bishop and the Senate leader of National Party, Barnaby Joyce in her private jet. Bishop is from Western Australia, where Rinehart's company has huge iron ore mines, and Joyce hails from Queensland, where the coal projects Rinehart was in the process of selling to Reddy's company are. Ms Rinehart has also been heard to complain about the alleged left-wing bias of Ten's popular 7PM Project, and to say the network needs a right-wing Fox News-style show in its line-up." Bolt's program, The Bolt Report, first aired on May 8, 2011 at 10am. Cheryl Edwardes, former Minister for the Environment in Western Australian between 1997 to 2001 and Attorney General is now a senior executive with Rhineharts company Hancock Prospecting.

lovemedia:

It's analogous to Fairfax/News Ltd popularity, one is popular, one is not.

Bolt produces what people like to read, regardless of whether it is "intellectual" or not, those are Australians and have a right to choose.

I suspect Jonathan would love to limit not only their choice of what they read, but whether they can vote or not .. surely people who are not inteleku, intellik .. smart enough by his standards, should not even breed!

Bring back totalitarianism, but only if the intelik, entllieg .. people like Jonathan, are in charge.

Mark James:

09 Feb 2012 4:14:15pm

lovemedia, Bolt produces what people like to read like tobacco companies produce what people like to inhale. Both might feel good as they go in but you're kidding yourself if you think they're not toxic.

lovemedia:

10 Feb 2012 6:01:58am

"insert hated entity here" produces what people like to read like tobacco companies produce what people like to inhale. Both might feel good as they go in but you're kidding yourself if you think they're not toxic.

You can say that about anything, can't you? New blogs, existing sites .. whatever.

It just reflects your own bias .. nothing new there.

Bolt is not toxic, his reputation amongst lefties who resocialise their breathless blathering of what they think he says, is legion.

I've seen so many comments about Bolt that are clearly from people who do not read or have not read what he writes.

Being wrong and misquoting him constantly, doesn't stop people making "toxic" comments though, does it?

Mark James:

Thanks lovemedia, but calling Bolt toxic is expressing an opinion. It's an opinion I hold, and one you obviously disagree with.

We have a difference of opinion. But that doesn't mean one of us is wrong and the other one right. We can even agree to disagree.

However, where wrong and right do matter is in the presentation of facts. And you are absolutely wrong to say I misquote Bolt, as every quote I have ever attributed to Bolt has been cut & pasted from Bolt's own writing.

JL:

MDG:

09 Feb 2012 4:27:55pm

Nice try, but you've missed the point. The point is that a person who is a fan of a columnist in one newspaper, and allegedly got that columnist a show on TV, exercising influence over another newspaper could lead to a REDUCTION in choice. Nothing limits diversity like a monopoly, whether that monopoly exists due to private wealth or the power of the state.

custard:

09 Feb 2012 3:27:23pm

"What is causing the angst and the gnashing of teeth about Rinehart's media moves into Ten and Fairfax is the simple fear that it could result not in more media diversity in the mainstream Australian media, but less."

No its not Johnathon, it is the fear of biased left wing reporters being told to report fully including those opinions of the right. Bolt himself has queried why it is that there is no opinion from the right on the staff of the Age. They simply get former Liberal party members to provide the odd piece believing that balance is provided.

BTW your analysis of the Australia Day fiasco on Media Watch the other day was a joke when you spent more time carrying on about what was on Yahoo7 blogs than at the heart of the problem which clearly is the PM's media office.

M Ryutin:

09 Feb 2012 4:20:06pm

It doesn't matter to me at all, but make no mistake, IF Rinehart is actually trying to have some 'influence' by buying into Fairfax, there is no difference at all between what Wood and Rinehart are doing. Pay nothing and Rinehart has no influence, buy the lot (or enough) and she has the same situation as Wood. Can she afford it, will it survive? Unlikely.

Highly likely that she will sell out to another proprietor as soon as the cross media laws are changed (if they are changed).

But there is nothing wrong with that! The hysteria surrounding this Rinehart purchase is something to behold. If the paranoid are actually correct and that Rinehart thinks her expertise in one field can possibly translate into a completely different one I would agree with them about her motive - but she would fail in a spectacular fashion. All of a sudden she would come up against a harsh reality: Does Rupert Murdoch watch a competitor attack his business model? This is why I laugh at the "Fox News" hysteria also. I agree that the masters of the left political narrative fear a strong competitor for the large segment of the community which they have had to themselves so far (50% of the population) but that is television, not newspapers!

Wood would be the greatest beneficiary if the idea pushed by Bob Brown to make such media "philanthropy" tax deductible and thus get a lot of tax breaks for his trouble, but i actually agree with such a tax move. Works for all sides to a political argument. Attard might be trying to emulate the left wing Pro Publica - but there is nothing wrong with that either, it might encourage others to do the same (if they are the wrong politics, hear the shrieks then!) - and that is to the good for a public who need to have every ability to read other views without I might add, a single cent of taxpayers money being used to directly subsidise them. So as long as current left-leaning media rent-seekers dont get onto the public teat, all is well.

I wonder if the new cross media law proposals will have anyone else interested in the important Rinehart block of shares? A non-Murdoch newspaper proprietor who can cross-subsidise? Any hints?

John:

09 Feb 2012 4:39:19pm

"Much though Andrew Bolt may despise the chattering classes..."

Not as much as the chattering classes, particularly those in the ABC, despise Andrew Bolt perhaps Jonathan? - judging by the number of anti-Bolt articles we read on the Drum and the loathsome comments from the faithful drummers?

Now you regard yourself as a watcher of media Jonathan. What articles have been written about well known Leftie and environmentalist Graeme Wood's investment into the media on the ABC Drum? Can you remind us of any? apart from your attempt to-day to condemn Bolt for highlighting the Left's double standard over the issue.

I can recall the beating drums and crashing cymbals over Rinehart:

"Rinehart's move is obviously intended to allow her to push her miner's message." Ring a bell? Of course it is Mr Davies but dear old Graeme would never push his would he?

"Gina Rinehart finally secured herself a seat on the board of Channel Ten after buying up shares the previous year. Just before that meeting, right-wing blogger and Andrew Bolt was given his own showto promote his climate "sceptic" agenda." Are you sure Mr Readfearn? Anyway it would never do to hear an alternative view to yours, would it?

"We need to act with some urgency at a time when the most powerful individuals in the country are trying to acquire enterprises which might once have rendered them accountable." That's Gina of course, what about Graeme? - he's OK Mr Wilson?

I am sure that Bolt welcomes any investment into media from whoever and whichever side of the political spectrum and continued free and open debate. From what I read from Bolt, who always backs his POV with evidence, it is not the chattering classes so much that he despises but rather their hypocrisy.

Raskul:

The Seeker:

09 Feb 2012 5:01:09pm

Sounds like a lot of good sense to me, Jonathan. I feel sure you are not worried by the persisting numbers who do not follow you and thus disagree. Such individuals, though no doubt well meaning enough, are gradually disappearing.

I have lived a very long time and am witnessing many, many changes all to the good. More and more money and attention are being applied to education and health, more young people are appreciatiing the worth of education and are completing at least year twelve, more young people, especially women are attending universities, the number of people in stable, de facto couples is increasing, the number of people professing *no religion* is increasing, knowledge of all kinds is increasing.

In short, while the quantity and quality of our intelligence will take many more thousands of years of favourable evolution to show signs of improvement, the quality of our intellects is improving rapidly in exponential bounds. This proceeds from nothing other than education. So anything that contributes to improvements in that department is of the utmost value. It all takes time. Softly, softly, catchee monkey! Hence, go Julia!

Bushranger:

09 Feb 2012 5:01:22pm

globalmail.org? Who decided the layout? The format is way too hard to read. As a webmaster of many years the first thing we learn is to make websites in a format that everyone can read. You need it to display at 1024x768 and properly display in Internet Explorer (because that comes with ALL PCs) and on that point the site format fails miserably. They may think their stats show most readers have higher resolutions but that would be because most readers with 1024 resolutions have given up trying to read it. The site layout, as it is defeats the purpose of spreading news far and wide and will be greatly limiting their viewer potential. As a leftist leaning reader I was looking forward to having a read but have just closed it now bitterly disappointed. I tried letting them know too but their contact form doesn't seem to work in IE.

JNWS:

09 Feb 2012 5:20:31pm

Your comment "further acknowledge that more tertiary-educated, professional people" vote Labor is a load of unadulterated rubbish. A review of the education levels in the various electorates and their current political incumbent would lead to concluding the exact opposite!

Jim Hansen:

09 Feb 2012 5:21:03pm

Rinehart will be good for Fairfax, as her influence will return it to the successful independent pluralist media organisation it was before it morphed into the daily edition of the Green Left Weekly, and became a loss making venture.

Dean of the Alice:

09 Feb 2012 5:21:55pm

A personality cult around a leader can pervade an organisation. I worked for a federal government agency in which this was the case. In many discussions around policy development a number of colleagues (thankfully not all but far too many for comfort) would pose the question "but what would the boss think of this"? Serious policy considerations were developed by underlings not on the basis of considered analysis of the problems and potential solutions but rather on their second-guessing of the particular point of view of a chap who probably had no particular insight into the specific issue.

I can well imagine this being the case in the more rough-and-tumble world of a commercial media organisation, in which employees don't have the security of tenure that public servants enjoy and don't have specific legislation mandating their obligations to parliament and the public - obligations which transcend their obligations to their direct employer. If all of the editors, subs and humble scribblers at News and Fairfax are above considering whether their CEO might have a hostile reaction to a piece they are drafting I would be delighted. You would also be able to knock me down with a feather.

Andrew:

09 Feb 2012 5:29:29pm

"Let's acknowledge that, on the strength of its first few days online, The Global Mail is not likely to appeal to Andrew Bolt's readers. It is more likely to appeal to tertiary-educated, professional people, with an appetite for long, considered and not especially up-to-the-minute stories from around the world.

Let's further acknowledge that more tertiary-educated, professional people (as opposed to self-employed small business people and big business executives) vote Labor or Green than Liberal or National - these are the 'liberal elites' and 'chattering classes' so often scorned by the likes of Andrew Bolt. Arguably, the same people form the target audience of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, and (News Ltd columnists would certainly argue) of the ABC as well. And they're already being targeted by newer publications like Crikey, New Matilda and The Monthly."

Project much? Engage in fantasies about your intellectual superiority and that of your readers? Enjoy demonizing and diminishing your opponents? What a load of smug rhetoric.

Well, Jonathan, THIS tertiary-educated elite is sick of the hypocrisy of smug left wing journalists who think it's okay for the left to be funded by billionaires but want conservatives silenced.

The nose:

09 Feb 2012 5:40:59pm

Any body who has studied the history of right wingers in Nazi occupied Europe well notice they couldn't wait to embrace the invading, Nazi's and dob in their left wing neighbours who were harbouring refugees.And by the tone of the right wing correspondents to this article nothing has changed, self interested greedy, heartless and the intellectual capacity of a dead fish.

harry:

09 Feb 2012 7:58:02pm

And anybody who has read anything about the shameful behaviour of Australian left-wing unions at the start of the war would know that they went strike and didn't support our war effort until Nazi Germany invaded their former allies the Soviet Union.

GraemeF:

Fairfax is going down hill. I used to read almost the entire Saturday Herald, now I even skip articles in my favourite parts because I can tell they are a waste of time in the first paragraph.

Bolt and his ilk don't understand the concept of investigative journalism. That requires you to go past the surface and find the facts. Much better to churn out wild unsubstantiated claims or blow a small fact completely out of proportion. Find a scab and keep picking at it over and over again while ignoring the rest of the healthy elephant. It's not journalism. It's poorly structured and often inaccurate 'opinion'.

jim:

09 Feb 2012 6:30:42pm

Many West Aussies live as if the 2nd WW ended yesterday. Concerning Australian patriotism and racism. This is why the people are preyed on so hard by the corporate and commerce and political and media sheep whisperers.Gina may give herself an education with her attempts.

iian:

Big Ben:

09 Feb 2012 7:34:10pm

Thanks Jonathan

As democracy died years ago I say let the really big lady unfettered access into the Faifax inner circle. No problem. Abbott is going to need all the help he can get when people begin to see him for what he is. Murdoch, Bolty and Jonesy are not going to be enough to save him.And he clearly cannot rely on his political minders for help because they must be useless - not one of them appears to have had the good manners to inform him that policy free bully's are not generally thought highly of as potential leaders of this great land.

Ross:

09 Feb 2012 8:02:12pm

Jonathon, are you saying that the ABC and Fairfax *aren't* of the left, and that you, Monica, et al aren't also of the left? Is that what you're trying to say?

This isn't a rhetorical question; I genuinely would like to know, and if it's your contention, perhaps it could be supported up by some examples of the "fearless, independent" reporting on leftist issues or narratives that would make it so. I am at loss to think of any "fearless, independent" reporting about, say, climate change, green industries, the Australian Greens, asylum-seekers, immigration, or multiculturalism that has been covered by anyone at Fairfax or the ABC. These examples cut expressly to the thrust of your contention in this article, and may I say, your and your colleagues' world view.

Mark James:

09 Feb 2012 9:05:34pm

Ross, could you provide any evidence supporting your implication that Holmes and Attard are of the Left, and that their alleged "leftness" impinges on their professionalism?

It's so easy to dismiss somebody on the grounds that they are "left" and therefore whatever they say is not to be taken seriously. But if you can't back up your smear with evidence, then why should anybody take you seriously?

Ross:

10 Feb 2012 8:58:29am

Being of the left is a "smear"? I'd have thought it's just a straightforward observation. Anyhow, on MediaWatch we always see Jonathon going in smugly hard on News Ltd or talkback but very sensitively if he has to crit ABC or Fairfax types. He has at least twice used MW to promote his version of AGW, rather than address the ethics of diversity of opinion. In my comment, I provided examples of issues that the left either ignore, play down, or propagandise, and never ask difficult questions about that would challenge their world view.

Mark James:

10 Feb 2012 12:14:03pm

Thanks for the response, Ross.

However, I would disagree with you that Holmes is "smug" when presenting News Ltd content and "sensitive" when presenting ABC or Fairfax content. I mean, could you be specific? Does he subtly snarl when talking about News Ltd? Do his eyes twinkle more? Does the bottom lip curl? What exactly do you see that I do not see ?

As for Holmes promoting "his version of AGW", that's surely Holmes presenting the version of AGW that 97% of climate scientists, NASA, every Academy of Science in the developed world, and all the Bureaus of Meteorology subscribe to. And I think Holmes is perfectly justified in pointing out that News Ltd coverage on the science of climate change does not reflect the scientific consensus on climate change.

Would you not expect, for instance, Media Watch to challenge a media outlet that devoted, say, 50% of its coverage on AIDS to HIV deniers? Or 50% of its coverage on WWII to Holocaust deniers?

Gary:

09 Feb 2012 9:06:26pm

I'm a "tertiary-educated, professional person with an appetite for long, considered and not especially up-to-the-minute stories from around the world" and I think the Global Mail is a Leftist rag. Don't assume Holmes it makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'.

Gary:

genfie:

09 Feb 2012 9:46:25pm

"to deliver original, fearless, independent journalism"

The problem with the likes of Bolt is that to their mind this is "left wing" journalism. Anything that analyses an issue from every side and provides context is "left wing" because the "right wing" believes that context doesn't matter.

Something is 'right' or 'wrong' and what is 'right' or 'wrong' depends on the viewpoint of the people making the news. When Bolt accuses the ABC of being "left wing", it's usually because they put an act into context and judged it on its merits within that context.

For example, they might analyse the extrajudicial killing of Osama Bin Laden in the same way they would analyse any other extrajudicial killing - outlining the background, the political situation, the drivers of the action and determining 'right' or 'wrong' based on international law for example. THis is good journalism 101. To Bolt, it's "left wing".

Of course, this isn't what "left wing" or "right wing" even mean but no o ne these days uses them correctly anyway.

So, if the Global Mail is "left wing" according to Bolt then I'll be tuning in. It'll be nice to get some balanced journalism in this country.

Ross:

10 Feb 2012 9:06:02am

The point is that they don't "analyse from every side." Because they're of the left, their focus is through a left wing prism. They aren't able, or object, to see how the right views these issues. For example, of the three Occupy movement pieces in the GM, they were all positive. Yet the right views them far more realistically and critically because they don't share the ideology. That's the whole point - the left are unable to see "all sides", just the sides they're used to. That's why diversity of opinion is important, even if you object to it or it challenges you.

vadi:

10 Feb 2012 6:58:10am

An excellent article - it is this sort of penetrating analysis which gives me hope that there's still some sort of intellectual life left in the ABC. I also applaud the comments of MJMI. I used to be an Age reader, and then I switched to the SMH - my local newspaper, the Advertiser (aka known as the Fertilizer or the Paralyser) is tabloid in fact and tabloid (in the worst sense)in nature. I now buy no newspaper. Rinehart's ambitions are well known - she is a right wing extremist who among other things wants to employ Asians at slave labour rates to increase her profits. Murdoch is one of the most dangerous men on the planet - as a former journalist (working for US magazines) - I am aware of his ambitions and his determination to have an Australian government which is answerable to his agenda - hence his support for Abbott and co. Possibly one of the best exposes of Murdoch and the New Right is contained in UK writer Jonathan Coe's wonderful novel "What a carve up"....It would be interesting, if anybody had the time, to research the background of some of the "hired guns" of the far right - the Akkermans, Pearsons, Bolts and Devines of this world. Their pedestals of moral superiority from which they pontificate would crumble beneath them.

Icedvolvo:

10 Feb 2012 10:26:18am

I was wondering when the charge of the "enlightened" brigade would begin; while the main mouthpiece of the left (aka the ABC) remains sacrosanct and protected by the Labor/Green masters the less left Fairfax group plays its lesser role as supporting apparatchik.

But now the heavy artillery seems to be mobilising and the eloquent ideologue Holmes comes into bat for the "strong tradition of journalistic independence." as he puts it!

I await with some voyeuristic titillation the ideological battles in the near future as the the ALP seeks to protect its second best media asset (Fairfax) via its biggest and most powerful media asset: the ABC!

spud:

10 Feb 2012 12:18:22pm

A long winded and rambling piece which is effectively an attempt to defend the indefensible; the belief of the left that they have the right to silence, and to seek to silence dissenting voices by whatever means, and to have the monopoly right to impose their own views, including with the help of the public purse, on the proletariat.

Bolt is right in more than his politics; he is also right in his defence of democratic freedoms; and he has the courage to speak out against those who would stifle them. It would be nice if Holmes, as the spear carrier of the ABC in that regard, were in the same boat.